Why I am neither Theist or Atheist, but an Agnostic.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
"There may be a god or may not be one. We don't know for sure, no one does."

What is that?

It is not a description of your belief (or lack thereof) with respect to the proposition "God exists." It is a description of your belief that the proposition "it is possible that a god exists" is true. It is also a description of your belief with respect to the proposition "it is known that a god does or does not exist."

Please keep in mind that it is perfectly rational to believe that a god exists while not believing that this belief is true and justified, i.e. knowledge. Such a person would be an agnostic theist.
 
Last edited:

SlitheryDee

Lifer
Feb 2, 2005
17,252
19
81
"There may be a god or may not be one. We don't know for sure, no one does."

What is that?

That isn't anything. That's just stating a fact that most real atheists will agree with. What would mean something in terms of where you fall on the scale is what your opinion is. You probably have one even if you don't officially acknowledge it. If you had to guess which one it is, what would you say? It doesn't even matter what you base your answer on, gut feelings are as good as anything when you already know you can't know the answer for certain. The main thing to know is that it doesn't have to be a firm and unwavering conviction to make you a theist or an atheist. You're NOT saying "This is what it is" so much as "This is what I think it is".

My belief is that when faced with two conflicting propositions, a person will gravitate toward one or the other if they give them any serious thought. The only way to avoid it would be to not think about them at all. You can choose a side even while you tell yourself that it's entirely possible that what you're leaning toward isn't true. That tentative leaning will put you on one side or the other of the center and will make it possible for you to be categorized.
 

Zeze

Lifer
Mar 4, 2011
11,395
1,180
126
It is not a description of your belief (or lack thereof) with respect to the proposition "God exists." It is a description of your belief that the proposition "it is possible that a god exists" is true. It is also a description of your belief with respect to the proposition "it is known that a god does or does not exist."

Please keep in mind that it is perfectly rational to believe that a god exists while not believing that this belief is true and justified, i.e. knowledge. Such a person would be an agnostic theist.

That IS my belief. Who are you to tell me otherwise? You're just bent on trying to fit my belief to your description.

My stance is that no one knows there is or isn't a god. I withhold my judgement (and everyone should), and just live my life. You can't be this dense...
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
I'm gonna get this off my chest finally in the wake of committed theists and atheists.

I've always thought that we're fucking arrogant. We know jackshit or just BARELY started to scratch the surface of knowledge and have the audacity to make a conclusive statement about ANYTHING.

Let's see what retards we are:
-Earth's age is 4.5 billion years old and modern human life is mere 60,000 years old. Okay, 60K sounds long enough, right?

-Only til 10,000 years ago, we were nothing but hunter-gatherers. No society whatsoever.

-Age of Reason occurred fucking 150 YEARS AGO!!! That's like YESTERDAY and two grandpas ago. Most of us also thought Earth was flat.

-We're so stupid, it was until WWII we started to sterilize medical equipments between wounded soldiers. Before that, a same knife went inside different soldiers all day. So primitive was our BASIC understanding of medical science.

-Recently. the know-it-all scientists get together and set six elements needed to define and sustain life. Just FIVE months ago, NASA finds Arsenic-based life that totally shatters our utterly premature and ignorant perspective of life.

Our intellect is so primitive and we already think we know so much. I mean, the last three bullets are just appalling for me.

How can we flat out conclusively say there is no supreme being? It's like an ant proclaiming there is no internet. Just because our HUMAN, EARTHBOUND five senses cannot perceive it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There can be lifeforms or beings or universes in a complete different dimensions, totally outside of our conventional thinking. There can be shit flying around now in our solar system in a completely different form unimaginable.

So Atheists, I personally think it's awful arrogant for any of us to say there is no god. And originating from a big bang (which isn't even entirely scientific) isn't exactly reassuring when we thought sun revolved around earth mere 3 grandparents ago.

Theists, (especially organized religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc) you have got to be joking that the GOD that created the fabric of the entire universe is from OUR human world. Your God is all confined to human concept- love, revenge, forgiveness, original sin, etc. Earth and human life is a speck of sand in all beaches in this world. And your supreme god and its description all derived from our cultural concepts? Come on.

God is not of this world, he created it

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
That IS my belief.
It is a belief, sure. It does not answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?" however.

Who are you to tell me otherwise?
Someone that understands the English language.

You're just bent on trying to fit my belief to your description.
Personally, I think you're projecting your own desire to elude description.

My stance is that no one knows there is or isn't a god.
This isn't about what you think people know. This about whether or not you believe the proposition "God exists" is true.

I withhold my judgement (and everyone should), and just live my life. You can't be this dense...
I debate this stuff on other forums for fun. I dare say I have quite a bit more experience in it than you.
 
May 11, 2008
20,202
1,149
126
I'm gonna get this off my chest finally in the wake of committed theists and atheists.

I've always thought that we're fucking arrogant. We know jackshit or just BARELY started to scratch the surface of knowledge and have the audacity to make a conclusive statement about ANYTHING.

Let's see what retards we are:
-Earth's age is 4.5 billion years old and modern human life is mere 60,000 years old. Okay, 60K sounds long enough, right?

-Only til 10,000 years ago, we were nothing but hunter-gatherers. No society whatsoever.

-Age of Reason occurred fucking 150 YEARS AGO!!! That's like YESTERDAY and two grandpas ago. Most of us also thought Earth was flat.

-We're so stupid, it was until WWII we started to sterilize medical equipments between wounded soldiers. Before that, a same knife went inside different soldiers all day. So primitive was our BASIC understanding of medical science.

-Recently. the know-it-all scientists get together and set six elements needed to define and sustain life. Just FIVE months ago, NASA finds Arsenic-based life that totally shatters our utterly premature and ignorant perspective of life.

Our intellect is so primitive and we already think we know so much. I mean, the last three bullets are just appalling for me.

How can we flat out conclusively say there is no supreme being? It's like an ant proclaiming there is no internet. Just because our HUMAN, EARTHBOUND five senses cannot perceive it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There can be lifeforms or beings or universes in a complete different dimensions, totally outside of our conventional thinking. There can be shit flying around now in our solar system in a completely different form unimaginable.

So Atheists, I personally think it's awful arrogant for any of us to say there is no god. And originating from a big bang (which isn't even entirely scientific) isn't exactly reassuring when we thought sun revolved around earth mere 3 grandparents ago.

Theists, (especially organized religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc) you have got to be joking that the GOD that created the fabric of the entire universe is from OUR human world. Your God is all confined to human concept- love, revenge, forgiveness, original sin, etc. Earth and human life is a speck of sand in all beaches in this world. And your supreme god and its description all derived from our cultural concepts? Come on.

I think you need to do more reading of history and then primary of different cultures other then western recent history and what you learned through roman catholic approved history. You will find that those claims you make are not accurate. Ancient cultures also exist outside midwest /south europe and the US/UK. You will find that most what you mentioned actually was discovered but was destroyed. The dark ages where mostly dark ages to roman catholics and Christians. For other cultures, life was a lot better because of living without the lies and violence of the roman catholic church. The "beast" has been living in Rome for quite some time. Only those who separated from this evil did find joy once again.

And yes i am not a religious believer.
 
Last edited:

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
You write like someone that thinks the only alternative to believing 1 or more gods exist is to believe exactly zero gods exist, and that is false.


unfortunately for you, that is exactly the case.
in the world of facts... aka discrete mathematics

this universe contains exactly some non-negative integer of gods.
0, 1, or X.

the question is posed, which do you assume is the correct value. If your answer is
0 = you are an atheist.
1 = you are a monotheist.
X = you are a polytheist.

This word has greek roots, the prefix A- which means ZERO, and the word THEOS which means god. it refers to the numerical value you place on the noun theist. Many people try to incorrectly translate this into without god or without belief.



Furthermore, every major dictionary including Merriam Webster, Collins, Pearson Longman, and (the offial recognized dictionary of the english language) Oxford define

athiesm - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.



Finally, your incorrect but claimed definition of "lack of beliefs" is simply an attempt by atheists to avoid defending the problems of their atheistic position. By saying they lack belief, then their position is they have not made a claim to defend. However if they disbelieve or actively deny, then they have to come up with evidence also, and they know they have no more than their believing counterparts.

one day, the choice will have to be made... 0, 1, or X.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
unfortunately for you, that is exactly the case.
in the world of facts... aka discrete mathematics

this universe contains exactly some non-negative integer of gods.
0, 1, or X.

the question is posed, which do you assume is the correct value. If your answer is
0 = you are an atheist.
1 = you are a monotheist.
X = you are a polytheist.
This is false. It does not follow from "I do not believe that 1 or more gods exist" that "I believe exactly 0 gods exist." You cannot derive "I believe not-x" from "I do not believe X."

This word has greek roots, the prefix A- which means ZERO, and the word THEOS which means god. it refers to the numerical value you place on the noun theist. Many people try to incorrectly translate this into without god or without belief.
The prefix a- denotes negation. Strictly speaking it is not a quantitative value.



Furthermore, every major dictionary including Merriam Webster, Collins, Pearson Longman, and (the offial recognized dictionary of the english language) Oxford define

athiesm - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
Disbelief in the existence of a god is not tantamount to the belief in the existence of zero gods.



Finally, your incorrect but claimed definition of "lack of beliefs" is simply an attempt by atheists to avoid defending the problems of their atheistic position. By saying they lack belief, then their position is they have not made a claim to defend. However if they disbelieve or actively deny, then they have to come up with evidence also, and they know they have no more than their believing counterparts.
Wrong. I have only represented my beliefs in a forthright manner. Your argument is nothing more than ad hominem.

one day, the choice will have to be made... 0, 1, or X.
This is merely a statement of faith on your part.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Personally, I believe that it is possible for there to be 1 or more higher power.

That is actually a distinct belief apart from believing there is 1 or more supreme beings and disbelieving there is 1 or more supreme beings.

My existence and the existence of those who hold my belief actually unequivocally proves your false dichotomy.

Wow! You are claiming others have the logic fallacy with a statement like that?!?!

The question of Theism is "Do you believe in a God? Yes or No."

It is a binary answer. There is no in between. Believing in possibilities is a completely different question.

If you answer "I don't believe in a god(s)" but take on the quantifying statement for your own edification "But I believe in the possibility of god(s)" still makes you an Atheist. It is no different than a Theist that believes in a god(s) make the opposite quantifying statement of "I believe in the possibility of there being no god(s)" or even for a mono Theist making the statement "I believe in the possibility of there being more than one god" or the reverse of that quantifying statement.

Your own edification does NOT change the dichotomy of the language.


I would say it's just the opposite. The definition of Agnosticism is not for you to decide.

You are right, I am not deciding the definition, I'm using what has already been decided for that word. It is others like you and Dawkins that are trying to change the definition.


The fact that the stigma placed on the word atheist by religions makes it so people have a hard time wanting to assign that correct label to themselves does not change the fact they aren't atheists. I personally don't care for your sense of wishy washy edification mental roller coaster loops that you go through to make yourself feel better about being an atheist but not calling yourself that because you believe in possibilities! There is no quantum physics involved in this simple equation and so stop trying to use big words and theories like wave collapse theory to try and reassign a simple binary formula. One thing I've learned about math and ANY math professor will tell you. K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid (to put my spin on the acronym). Meaning you don't try to make a formula more complicated than it needs to be.
 
Last edited:

Zeze

Lifer
Mar 4, 2011
11,395
1,180
126
The question of Theism is do you believe in a God? Yes or No. It is a binary answer. There is no inbetween. .

Says who? wtf? Did you come up with this or you adhering to some 'popular atheist'?

Why does it have to be yes or no? Why can't one be humble enough to say- we don't know? Who gave you the rule that it has to be yes or no?

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. This isn't math.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
This is false. It does not follow from "I do not believe that 1 or more gods exist" that "I believe exactly 0 gods exist." You cannot derive "I believe not-x" from "I do not believe X."

No part of the word atheism contains belief. There are only two parts.
a- -> Zero. theos -> god. it is NOT... a- -> No. theos -> belief.


The prefix a- denotes negation. Strictly speaking it is not a quantitative value.
no, none, and zero all mean the same thing in this context.
even so... "no", it is still no gods. Not no beliefs.

Disbelief in the existence of a god is not tantamount to the belief in the existence of zero gods.
Indeed it does.
disbelief = denial. It is a mental rejection.

Wrong. I have only represented my beliefs in a forthright manner. Your argument is nothing more than ad hominem.
You may be attempting to represent your beliefs, but atheism is not the correct representation. My argument is based on discrete mathematics and recognized official facts.


This is merely a statement of faith on your part.

There are X stars in the universe, there are Y gods in the universe, and there are Z hydrogen atoms in the universe.

The state of the existance of Z objects is a quantifiable discrete numerical value. It is independent of yours/mine or anyones beliefs, and is not based on any faith.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Says who? wtf? Did you come up with this or you adhering to some 'popular atheist'?

Why does it have to be yes or no? Why can't one be humble enough to say- we don't know? Who gave you the rule that it has to be yes or no?

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. This isn't math.

Says who? It's a yes or no question. And "I don't know" is the same as refusing to answer. That doesn't mean you don't have an answer, just you refuse to make it known to others. I really do not care what your answer is, but trying to equate "refusing to answer" as an answer is just asinine.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
You are right, I am not deciding the definition, I'm using what has already been decided for that word. It is others like you and Dawkins that are trying to change the definition.


so then you agree with the official English Language definition of agnostic and agnosticism as published by Oxford, which are the official english dictionarys as recognized by the government of the United States, Canada, and UK.

agnostic
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

adjective
of or relating to agnostics or agnosticism. (in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something:
until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform



oh wait... it sounds like YOU are trying to change the definition.
 

Zeze

Lifer
Mar 4, 2011
11,395
1,180
126
Says who? It's a yes or no question. And "I don't know" is the same as refusing to answer. That doesn't mean you don't have an answer, just you refuse to make it known to others. I really do not care what your answer is, but trying to equate "refusing to answer" as an answer is just asinine.

???? I'm not gonna entertain this thick-headedness.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
so then you agree with the official English Language definition of agnostic and agnosticism as published by Oxford, which are the official english dictionarys as recognized by the government of the United States, Canada, and UK.

agnostic
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

adjective
of or relating to agnostics or agnosticism. (in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something:
until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform



oh wait... it sounds like YOU are trying to change the definition.

I'm not changing the definition. Read it again.

Do not KNOW. That is Agnosticism. "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

It means you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. It is not a definition for something in between. Thanks for proving my point and proving yourself an idiot.


And to further reiterate... a link to dictionary.com Agnostic

1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3.
of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4.
asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Again meaning you are stating you lack knowledge as to your stance, not that your lack of knowledge is a stance unto itself.
 
Last edited:

Zen0

Senior member
Jan 30, 2011
980
0
0
I'm not changing the definition. Read it again.

Do not KNOW. That is Agnosticism. "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

It means you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. It is not a definition for something in between. Thanks for proving my point and proving yourself an idiot.


And to further reiterate... a link to dictionary.com Agnostic



Again meaning you are stating you lack knowledge as to your stance, not that your lack of knowledge is a stance unto itself.


You are changing the definition. I am textbook agnostic: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. "
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
No part of the word atheism contains belief. There are only two parts.
a- -> Zero. theos -> god. it is NOT... a- -> No. theos -> belief.
The latter is precisely what it means. It makes no sense to suppose that a- denotes a quantity. Symmetry isn't quantitative. Morality isn't quantitative. Yet we can sensibly talk about asymmetry and amoral beliefs. Obviously, then your assertion is false.

{snip}

Indeed it does.
disbelief = denial. It is a mental rejection.
Assertions are not arguments. If disbelief were not distinct from denial it would not be necessary to denote the both of them with an OR statement in the definition you cited.


You may be attempting to represent your beliefs, but atheism is not the correct representation. My argument is based on discrete mathematics and recognized official facts.
Theism and atheism are not quantitative phenomena, doofus.




There are X stars in the universe, there are Y gods in the universe, and there are Z hydrogen atoms in the universe.

The state of the existance of Z objects is a quantifiable discrete numerical value. It is independent of yours/mine or anyones beliefs, and is not based on any faith.
The state of existence of something and my belief about that state are two different things.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
You are changing the definition. I am textbook agnostic: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. "
The root of gnosticism is -gnosis, i.e. knowledge. Where is knowledge addressed in your "textbook" definition? Which "textbook" did it come from, anyway?

Which of these resembles your definition?